Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050707113255.04098240@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:20:26 +0200
To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: does the Draft gives all the guidelines
	required by the Registry
In-Reply-To: <000a01c582bd$e44cdec0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
References: <20050706184415.FRGA21785.mta5.adelphia.net@megatron.ietf.org>
	<000a01c582bd$e44cdec0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Dear Doug,
I wish first you do not misconstrue by error my comments. I do not 
criticise what Michael has done (he himself has asked possible 
discrepancies to be fixed off line, what shows this is not easy for him). I 
want us to check, on probably the most complex example so far, that the 
current Draft would have helped him better. I wish too to see if it removes 
the difficulties which may lead to the removal of this registry from the 
IANA. Because people in charge may be "very hesitant to involve IANA in any 
direct way with either the language or country code authorities".

So, my references are not to the RFC 3066 but to the Draft.

At 08:34 07/07/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>Jefsey Morfin <jefsey at online dot fr> wrote:
>
> >> LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM
> >> Name of requester          : Karen Broome
> >> E-mail address of requester: karen_broome@spe.sony.com
> >
> > This information is of no interest to the users. It gives Karen Broome
> > and possibly Sony a stewardship on the American Spanish some could
> > seriously object.
>
>Incorrect.  It says right there, "Name of requester."  It is the name of
>the person who has filed the request to have the language tag
>registered.  Neither RFC 3066 nor any other document implies or requires
>that the requester has any expertise in the language.

I am glad you write that.

1. I think the first requirement should be that he is authoritative in the 
language or an active user of the language.
2. the Draft gives the registrant a priority/authority in discussing 
modifications concerning the language I want to see removed, for the reason 
you give: nothing "implies or requires that the request has any expertise 
in the language".
3. actually I do not see any reason why this name is recorded. No one owns 
a language: the request just represents the lingual or the global internet 
commuity. Otherwise the participants to the ietf-languages mailing list 
should also be recorded.
4. IMHO the procedure should be the otherway around. Anyone can register 
any language except if within 15 days were risen serious objections 
accepted by the Reviewer.

>The presence of "sony.com" in Karen's e-mail address says nothing about
>Sony's support of, or opposition to, her request, just as the presence
>of "adelphia.net" in my e-mail address says nothing about whether
>Adelphia agrees with what I say here.
>
>It is true that most users will not care who requested a tag, once the
>tag is registered.

This is not necessarily the feeling everywhere. When Peter Constable and 
Mark Davis registered Tajik and Chinese langtags, you may have noted that 
several times the mention was made on the ietf-languages@alvestrand.no 
mailing list these requests were made by Microsoft and IBM. I took 
acception of that in made some publicity of it (what was reproached to me). 
A Government note was copied to me about the concern that this might lead 
sales people to label their product "xxxx IANA registered xx-xxxx-xx 
inside". This is in direct line with the IAB fear in RFC 3869 (I quote: 
"The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the 
main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the 
Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.").

You will understand that as a non-commercially funded searcher (AFRAC is a 
non-profit), I share these concerns expressed by several officials from 
different countries on different continents.

> >> Native name of language (transcribed into ASCII): espanol de America
> >> Latina, espanol latinoamericano
> >
> > This information misses the French name of the language.
>
>Rightly or wrongly, this information is not required by RFC 3066.  See
>page 8.

I know and this is why I note it. General consensus among the non English 
mother tongue and a broad part of educated English mother tongue searchers 
I know is that the best fit is to use English as a koine and a quick 
experimentation tool due to its capacity to accept lose definitions and 
intuitive mutual rough understanding, and to use French as a reference 
language. The QA comes from a simultaneous work in both languages. The 
famous example of MPEG shown that MPEG convergence (radio, TV, media) could 
not have happen without a first working bridge between the English standard 
texts in French (to have a common term definition of the difference 
standards) to support the further work in English and a finalisation 
through duallanguage QA.

Translation of the French version with the assistance of the English 
version is often easier and more precise in other languages.

> >From the remainder of his comments, I take it Jefsey opposes the 
> registration of "es-419".

Total misconstruction of my comment.




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru